Time to bring back the prose?

Morrus · May 4, 2012

shidaku said:
1: The idea that powers should have a "standard" look is pretty silly. "fire" "ball" pretty much sums it up. Any more fluff than that should be up to the player.
2: This is a player issue, not a game issue.

Robust flavor text replaces imagination, it does not enhance it. It's like the difference between reading a book and watching a TV. Flavor text needs to be vague enough to allow the player room for creativity.

To that end, there's really no need at all for flavor text as long as the spell/power/exploit name is explicit. "fireball", "trip", "charge", yeah, don't need a whole lot more there. Anything extra, if necessary at all, can be made up by the player. I'm not saying there should be no flavor text, but that's ALL it is, flavor.

If my players want their powers to have a specific look to their powers, they'll create one, if they don't, they wont. Imagination is the prerogative of the player, not the books.

That really does sound like an Excel spreadsheet!

Let's just say that's no way to see sell me an RPG. If it's like that, I think I can confidently say I'll be checking out of the D&D brand.

I hope, hope, hope that I get my way and you don't get yours!

Sunseeker · May 4, 2012

Morrus said:
That really does sound like an Excel spreadsheet!

Let's just say that's no way to see sell me an RPG. If it's like that, I think I can confidently say I'll be checking out of the D&D brand.

I hope, hope, hope that I get my way and you don't get yours!

Do you even read what I write? Do you know what I want in terms of flavor text? Because every time you reply to me it sounds like you're addressing the straw man argument of me not wanting ANY flavor on spells and whatnot at all, which if anyone actually read beyond my first sentence, they'd know isn't what I'm shooting for.

I want flavor to mean something. If flavor is just going to be "This is a flaming orb", then that's pointless. I want to see creative stuff like "Thunt's last thought as the fireball touched his nose was 'oooo, shiny!'"
Flavor text that is little more than "You wiggle your fingers and shoot fire." is about as creative as if there was no flavor at all.

Bedrockgames · May 4, 2012

shidaku said:
Do you even read what I write? Do you know what I want in terms of flavor text? Because every time you reply to me it sounds like you're addressing the straw man argument of me not wanting ANY flavor on spells and whatnot at all, which if anyone actually read beyond my first sentence, they'd know isn't what I'm shooting for.

I want flavor to mean something. If flavor is just going to be "This is a flaming orb", then that's pointless. I want to see creative stuff like "Thunt's last thought as the fireball touched his nose was 'oooo, shiny!'"
Flavor text that is little more than "You wiggle your fingers and shoot fire." is about as creative as if there was no flavor at all.

I think you are coming through loud and clear and folks simply don't agree.

But this last part you posted suggests if you want flavor, you want something story related rather than descriptive. For the me the classic "you wiggle your fingers and shoot fire" is the kind of description I am looking for (though it certainly shouldn't stop there. I want something that is interesting to read and describes how the spell works. The first three editions worked just fine fo rme in this regard, but the last one didn't. So bottom line for me is I would like 1e, 2e, and 3e to be their models for flavor text.

But if you want something different that is totally fine with me. It sounds like you enjoy having more of the effect interpretation in the players court. That os cool for some people. Personally I like a little more consistemcy of flavor and would rather that kind of stuff be determined by the rule book or the gm (not the player) but that is just me.

herrozerro · May 4, 2012

shidaku said:
Do you even read what I write? Do you know what I want in terms of flavor text? Because every time you reply to me it sounds like you're addressing the straw man argument of me not wanting ANY flavor on spells and whatnot at all, which if anyone actually read beyond my first sentence, they'd know isn't what I'm shooting for.

I want flavor to mean something. If flavor is just going to be "This is a flaming orb", then that's pointless. I want to see creative stuff like "Thunt's last thought as the fireball touched his nose was 'oooo, shiny!'"
Flavor text that is little more than "You wiggle your fingers and shoot fire." is about as creative as if there was no flavor at all.

Actually now that i think of it d&d spell flavor should be like mtg flavor on cards. In all honesty flavor like the one you pointed out to me is more evocative.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2

Sunseeker · May 4, 2012

Bedrockgames said:
I think you are coming through loud and clear and folks simply don't agree.

But this last part you posted suggests if you want flavor, you want something story related rather than descriptive. For the me the classic "you wiggle your fingers and shoot fire" is the kind of description I am looking for (though it certainly shouldn't stop there. I want something that is interesting to read and describes how the spell works. The first three editions worked just fine fo rme in this regard, but the last one didn't. So bottom line for me is I would like 1e, 2e, and 3e to be their models for flavor text.

But if you want something different that is totally fine with me. It sounds like you enjoy having more of the effect interpretation in the players court. That os cool for some people. Personally I like a little more consistemcy of flavor and would rather that kind of stuff be determined by the rule book or the gm (not the player) but that is just me.

I just don't see the point of uncreative, rulesy flavor.

Bedrockgames · May 4, 2012

shidaku said:
I just don't see the point of uncreative, rulesy flavor.

Well, i think "you wiggle your fingers and fire comes out" can be part of creative flavor. But for me the point isn't tha it be creative in the sense of breaking new ground, just that it holds my interest, sparks my creativity, describes what the spell does and provides me with a mental image of how it might function. Personally I don't find 4e flavor especially creative, just sparse.

Maybe I am not sure what you mean by creative. Does it have to describe a fictional scenario or be "different" to be creative? Becuase I find many of the standard spell entries creative and blended perfectly with mechanics. But YMMV

Morrus · May 5, 2012

shidaku said:
Do you even read what I write? Do you know what I want in terms of flavor text? Because every time you reply to me it sounds like you're addressing the straw man argument of me not wanting ANY flavor on spells and whatnot at all, which if anyone actually read beyond my first sentence, they'd know isn't what I'm shooting for.

I want flavor to mean something. If flavor is just going to be "This is a flaming orb", then that's pointless. I want to see creative stuff like "Thunt's last thought as the fireball touched his nose was 'oooo, shiny!'"
Flavor text that is little more than "You wiggle your fingers and shoot fire." is about as creative as if there was no flavor at all.

Yes, I read what you wrote. I'm sorry, but my tastes differ to yours. No need to get upset; there's room for a range of tastes in this conversation.

I definitely don't want to see bits of fiction inserted in there, like your example. I'd like to see prose similar to the 3.5 era if spell descriptions - not quite as opaque as Gygaxian, but far more natural sounding than 4E's stat blocks.

I'm not after "fluff" (I find most D&D fluff to be awful); I'm talking about the rules information.

DMBrendon · May 5, 2012

shidaku said:
Flavor text that is little more than "You wiggle your fingers and shoot fire." is about as creative as if there was no flavor at all.

I would much prefer "You wiggle your fingers and shoot fire at an enemy adjacent to you, causing 1d6 points of damage." than "1d6 damage to 1 adjacent target".

Morrus · May 5, 2012

DMBrendon said:
I would much prefer "You wiggle your fingers and shoot fire at an enemy adjacent to you, causing 1d6 points of damage." than "1d6 damage to 1 adjacent target".

Yup. It's literally a question of syntax and formating for me, not add fluff.

Minigiant · May 5, 2012

There seems to be multiple aspects discussed here:

Raw spell Crunch
Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Area: 20-ft.-radius spread
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Reflex half
Spell Resistance: Yes
Damage: 5d6 fire damage

Syntax
A fireball spell deals 5d6 points of fire damage to every creature and unattenuated object within the area.

Fluff with gameplay impact and crunch
A fireball spell detonates with a low roar and deals... A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit.. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper,..

Fluff with no gameplay impact or crunch
A fireball spell is an explosion of flame

I think it all can be done.

Fireball (3rd level Arcane Spell)

After spending an action to cast the fireball spell, a glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the range of 400ft, blossoms into an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar. Every creature and unattenuated object within the 20-ft.-radius spread of the explosion is dealt 5d6 fire damage unless they make a Dexterity saving throw for half damage.

The explosion creates almost no pressure. It does, however, set fire to combustibles and can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze.

If the fireball spell is prepared at a higher spell slot than 3rd, it deals an additional 2d6 fire damage per level higher than the 3rd.

Time to bring back the prose?

Morrus

Well, that was fun

Sunseeker

Guest

Bedrockgames

Legend

herrozerro

First Post

Sunseeker

Guest

Bedrockgames

Legend

Morrus

Well, that was fun

DMBrendon

First Post

Morrus

Well, that was fun

Minigiant

Legend

Similar Threads